The government has a moral obligation to refuse to fund research or purchase morally contentious vaccines to fight Coronavirus and other threats to life and health, that have been derived from cell lines of children who have been killed in abortion.

It is abhorrent that vaccines developed from aborted cell lines contain the DNA of the children who were aborted.

Right to Life is writing to the Minister of Health requesting that the government purchase only ethically produced vaccines to combat the coronavirus.

The government has a duty to offer to the community vaccines that will not violate the conscience of those who are opposed to the killing of the innocent. We should not have to accept vaccines from aborted cell lines when other more morally acceptable alternatives exist.

The Congregation for the Faith in Rome issued an instruction, Dignitas Personae in 2008. The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. This fundamental principle expresses a great “yes” to human life and must be at the centre of ethical reflection on biomedical research, which has an ever greater importance in today’s world.

Vaccines are developed on the cultures of human tissue of babies killed before birth, precisely because they are human. It would be hypocritical of the government to purchase these vaccines when it has just recently rushed the anti-life Abortion Legislation Act through parliament on the pretext that the unborn child is not a human being. Is the government now prepared to concede that the unborn child is a human being?

There are two main aborted cell lines developed in 1964 and 1970 from healthy aborted children killed in the second trimester that are used to produce vaccines. There were hundreds of unborn babies killed before these cell lines were perfected. New cell lines continue to be developed from the human remains of babies killed before birth.

French pharmaceutical company Sanofi Pasteur is hoping to have a morally acceptable vaccine ready for human testing later this year. Two American companies, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna expect to commence human testing, the former in July and the latter in September 2020. Both of these companies are using unethical aborted cell lines. The government should not purchase unethically produced vaccines from these companies.

Governments should seek to fund research on, and purchase, morally uncontentious vaccines, both to reward morally uncontentious research and to provide more citizens with vaccines they can in conscience accept. Internationally, there are many vaccines that have been developed using aborted baby cell lines. it is very much to be hoped that morally un-contentious vaccines will be made widely available to all peoples of the world, both to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and to combat other threats to life and health.

Family Watch International is an important organisation who are exposing those who are advancing the agendas of the moral and sexual revolution. Family watch are working in countries around the world promoting policies and programmes that strengthen the family, protect the best interests of children and provide the best outcome for women and men.

Family watch have begun a series of 21 webinars. The first of these entitled “The World Health Organization Exposed!” was held earlier this week. This has been and others will be, recorded and can ALSO be accessed by following this link Family Watch have asked and Right to Life concurs that these be shared as widely as possible. Don’t hesitate to share the Vimeo video links with others.

The next webinar is entitled “UN Women Exposed” When Women’s Right Become Women’s Wrongs”. You can register here, but because of time differences it may be easier to watch the recorded session after Tuesday 12th May 2020.

Right to Life believes that making access to these videos and resources available is a powerful way to raise awareness of what is happening in the world and how we can defend innocent human life and family values from powerful forces worldwide which are aggressively pushing agendas that promote abortion, normal sexuality and the abolition of the traditional family.

Family First’s partnership website Choose Life recently posted a very comprehensive article summarising the glaring problems and extreme provisions within the Jacinda Ardern’s, recently enacted 2020 Abortion Legislation Act. The post also exposes how amendments that would have mitigated the more extreme aspects of the bill, such as the born alive provision and fetal pain provision were all voted down by a majority of our MP’s. The implications of these amendments being rejected is quite frankly shocking.

The post also presents the voting record of all MP’s not only on the Bill but on each of the major table SOP’s (Amendments).

I wish to request that consideration be given to the following suggestions for amending the “Interim Standards for Abortion Services in New Zealand”.

Information for Women

Abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy

This statement is untrue. The abortion is not safe for the unborn child. Pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not health care. Pregnancy is a normal condition that with care from health professionals who provide care for both mother and child terminates with a live birth. Abortion is the only medical procedure that has the specific intention of killing a patient, an unborn child. Abortion is neither safe for the mother who may be left with a lifetime of regret and sorrow, nor for the unborn child who is violently killed. It is abhorrent that the Ministry should be seen as promoting the destruction by abortion of innocent and defenceless unborn children by making this statement. I request that consideration be given to replacing that statement with the following statement, Human life begins at conception and that abortion entails the destruction of a unique and unrepeatable miracle of the Creator.

Long term complications from abortion

There is no mention of long term complications arising from abortion, Infertility, miscarriages, pre-maturity in future pregnancies and psychological damage to women’s health.

The findings of a study by Professor David Fergusson conducted in 2009 indicated that abortion damages the psychological health of teenagers. The study, the largest of its type and most detailed long-term study ever undertaken, attracted international attention. The research was conducted by the Canterbury Health and Development Study, at the Christchurch School of Medicine. The research was led by Professor David Fergusson, Ph.D. who is a psychologist and epidemiologist; He said that his research team had followed the progress of 1265 children born in Christchurch in the mid 1970s, from infancy to adulthood. Nearly 500 women in the study became pregnant by the age of 25 and 90 women had an abortion. 90 pregnancies ended with the deliberate termination of the life of the child.

His research found 41 per cent of the women studied had become pregnant by age 25, and that 14.6 percent had had an abortion. By the age of 25, the study found that 42 per cent who had undergone an abortion had also suffered major depression during the previous four years. In total, this was nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant and 35 per cent higher than those who had allowed their baby to be born. Those who had endured an abortion were also twice as likely to drink alcohol to dangerous levels compared with those who had a live birth, and three times as likely to be dependent on illicit drugs. Those who had an abortion also suffered elevated rates of depression, anxiety and suicidal behaviours.

Abortion Breast Cancer Link

It is recommended that women should be informed that international studies reveal that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer. The study, titled “A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females” was published in 2014 in Cancer Causes and Control, a peer-reviewed international cancer journal. The study reveals that after one abortion the risk of breast cancer increases by 44%, after two abortions,76% and after three abortions 89%.

The research was conducted by Yubei Huang et al. from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics in the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital.

The Chinese research follows on the heels of two similar studies. One study published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine in May 2013 found a 6-fold greater risk of breast cancer among Indian women with a history of induced abortion when compared to the women with no such history. A similar study from Bangladesh published in the Journal of the Dhaka Medical College in April 2013 found that women with a history of induced abortion had a 20-fold increase in likelihood of developing breast cancer when compared to women with no such history.

Pain Relief for Unborn Child

It is requested that women seeking a surgical abortion be advised that the unborn child from 12 weeks gestation can feel pain. Women should be asked if they wish to have pain relief given to their child before it undergoes violent dismemberment in her womb.
In a recent article in the influential journal Medical Ethics, two researchers, including a pro-abortion British pain expert who used to believe that there was no possibility that unborn babies could feel pain before 24 weeks, say that there is now “good evidence” that the brain and nervous system, which start developing at 12 weeks gestation are sufficiently developed to feel pain.

Printed information

It is suggested that the Ministry produce an information pamphlet to be given to women considering an abortion. This would ensure that there is uniformity of information provided by abortion providers.

Before the abortion- The abortion decision

Foetal development [which may include showing pictures of foetal development.]
It is contended that for informed consent factual pictures of an unborn child should be shown.

It is recommended that the misleading and dehumanising term products of conception should be replaced with the correct term, human remains.

It is recommended that the suggestion that all women be given the opportunity to be seen on their own to address the issues of coercion and to facilitate honest and open discussion be amended to must be seen on their own. Coercion, domestic violence and threats of violence cannot be addressed if the person exercising coercion is not excluded from honest and open discussion.

Medical abortion reversal – Informed Consent

It is requested that information about medical abortion reversal be included in the information pamphlet. Ten years ago Dr David Delgado of the United States developed a therapy using Progesterone that was administered to women who have changed their minds about proceeding with an abortion after taking the drug Mifepristone. Progesterone is administered within 72 hours of taking Mifepristone. Since its inception more than 600 babies have been saved from destruction. There is no record of any complications occurring, nor has any woman died as a consequence of the therapy. There are internationally 400 medical practitioners who are trained to use this therapy.

Waiting Times In Abortion Services

It is recommended that women should not be offered assessment, counselling and procedure on the same day. Women should be required to be given sufficient time to reflect after assessment and counselling before the destruction of their child. It is recommended that the procedure not take place for three days after assessment.

It is recommended that the abortion provider must make every reasonable effort to contact the regular General Practitioner of the patient before making a decision to proceed with an abortion procedure. This would provide the patient and the doctor with more relevant information and reduce the risk of a complication.

It is recommended that after assessment the abortion provider communicate with the women’s own medical practitioner to advise the practitioner of the proposed abortion to enable the practitioner to deal with any complications that might arise from the abortion.

What the Reuters story failed to mention – and apparently the Supreme Court found to be irrelevant – is that the case in question involved a woman who fought against being killed. Nor does the story mention that the doctor had drugged the woman before starting to euthanize her, and that the doctor instructed the family to hold the struggling woman down so that she could administer the lethal injection. Moreover, the patient had also stated in her instructions that she wanted to decide “when” the time for death had come — which she never did. The termination “choice” was made by the doctor and/or family in violation of the patient’s advance directive.

The Supreme Court judge Willem van Schendel ruled the doctor involved in this case acted with ‘due diligence’ and was therefore not punishable. He also said that in hat in advanced dementia cases, doctors must pay particular attention to the legal requirement that the patient is suffering “hopelessly and unbearably” as a result of dementia. Right to Life points out that other than our belief that deliberately injecting lethal chemicals into a patient to kill them is wrong in all circumstances, who decides when a patients suffering is ‘hopeless and unbearable’. Such vague and subjective terms make future abuse of their current laws a certainty.

Van Schendel also said that in such cases “not one, but two independent doctors” should be consulted about whether the written directive can be honoured.” ….Now where have we heard that the safeguard of two independent doctors would protect human lives before? That’s right it was back in 1977 when New Zealand’s Contraception Steralisation and Abortion Act was passed (with the result that since that time over 500,000 unborn New Zealanders have been murdered).

The second concerns France where controversy broke out at the end of march because of a government decree making the drug Clonazepam available outside its specific marketing authorisation in order for it to be used on patients with respiratory distress in the context of the Covid-19 epidemic. Critics are concerned the drug can now be used to kill off the fragile and elderly. The problem appears to be that those administering the drug in care homes are not trained in the use of this drug and that excessive dosages appear to be being used.

Both these cases illustrate the very real dangers of taking Euthanasia out of our criminal code. Evidence abounds in all jurisdiction overseas that where it has been let loose that Euthanasia continues to expand and that the slippery slope is a very real one indeed. It is vital that New Zealanders are informed about these dangers before the coming referendum on the End of Life Choice Bill.

A petition by Pamela Mcllwrith, commenced on 22nd April, with the aim of getting the government to hold a referendum to give New Zealanders the opportunity to decide whether the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 should be repealed. In just three days it has had 14,000 signatures. We believe this illustrates the degree of opposition to this legislation and to the way the government rode roughshod over the citizens of this country to advance its pernicious abortion agenda. The petition closes on 21st May.

Petition request

That the House of Representatives urge the Government to urgently hold a referendum to allow the New Zealand people the opportunity to have their say on whether the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 should be repealed.

Petition reason

In my view the abortion legislation was rushed through Parliament while the entire country was distracted with COVID-19. I think there needs to be a referendum so the people can have their say—MPs should not be able to vote against giving the people their say in such important matters, especially a law legalising full term abortion.

Even the pandemic is not permitted to stop the war against our own unborn. The violent killing of children is prioritised as “an essential service”. We have to ask if our fallen war heroes died in vain?

We must never forget the sacrifices that they made in order that future generations may live in freedom and enjoy our inalienable right to life. Throughout our nation there are monuments commemorating their sacrifice, which today we remember.

It is an illusion however that we are now living in peace and are free from war. Today we are engaged in another bloody war, not with a foreign aggressor but in a war against a new enemy, our own children. Why do we feel threatened by our own children in the womb, who are the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family? Pregnancy is not a disease, or an enemy, so again we must ask why has the womb become a battleground more violent than Gallipoli?

Since the passing of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977, there have been more than 500,000 children killed in the womb in New Zealand, their mothers too are victims of this war. The total number of New Zealanders killed in overseas conflicts, since the Boer War total 96,241. These children were deemed to be unwanted, of little worth. They are unnamed, worthy only of being a number in our abortion statistics. No tombstone marks their last resting place. Their mortal remains deemed to be medical waste to be incinerated in the same callous manner as the disposal of the Jews after slaughter at Nazi extermination camps during the Second World War.

The Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her Labour led government have now accelerated this war against our own children. She was the architect of the Abortion Legislation Act which has imposed on the unborn, the status of enemy and a threat to national security. Now who may be killed up to 20 weeks for any reason and up to birth if two medical practitioners consider it ‘appropriate’.

In effect this was nothing other than a deliberate and blatant ploy to decriminalise the murder of our most vulnerable and to coerce women into believing that killing their unborn children is not only ‘healthcare’, but that to do so is their ‘right’.

The Prime Minister is further committed to leading us down a road which embraces killing being a solution to our problems. By supporting and voting for the End of Life Choice bill and the referendum that if passed she poses a threat to right to life of the elderly, the disabled and the seriously ill. This would empower doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide and confuse the vulnerable young by promoting suicide as a solution to life’s problems.

Peace starts in the womb. New Zealand will continue to grow in violence and never know true peace, nor can we claim to be a just society, while we continue making war against our own children and support a referendum that would allow the state to empower doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide.

The government’s proposals are an affront to the sacrifices made by brave New Zealand men and women who gave their lives to defend and protect all New Zealanders from conception till natural death. Our community would honour the sacrifices made in war by repealing the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 and voting against the End of Life Choice bill at the referendum.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to advise us why she voted in Parliament on March 10, to oppose appropriate medical care being given to a child born alive in a late term abortion?

Simon O’Connor MP had moved an amendment to the Abortion Legislation Bill that would have required a doctor who had performed an abortion that resulted in a child being born alive, to have a duty to provide the child with appropriate care and treatment. This was the same duty of care that would be given to a born child.

Prime Minister as a loving mother, why would you deny care to a new born baby struggling and pleading for life after having survived the horror of an abortion?

Right to Life wrote to the Prime Minister on 13th March and asked her if she would kindly advise us why she had voted against this important amendment of Simon O’Connor and asked if she was opposed to providing a child born alive in an abortion with appropriate care. We also asked her why she voted against the amendment of Agnes Loheni MP, that sought to provide pain relief to babies being killed post 20 weeks. There has been no response to our request.

The Prime Minister stated in 2018 that she was going to lead the most transparent and accountable government that we had ever seen.Prime Minister, why then are you refusing to tell the people of New Zealand why you voted to oppose these pro-life amendments? We live in a democracy not a dictatorship, we have an absolute right to know.

For a doctor to withhold treatment and care or to deliberately kill the child born in an abortion is the serious and heinous crime of Infanticide. The charge could be homicide which on conviction could result in life imprisonment.

It is common decency to provide care for a child that is distressed and needing compassion and care. The Prime Minister said in September 2018, “If you ask me why I’m in politics, my answer will be simple: children.”Why then would she oppose giving a child born from an abortion appropriate medical care either to comfort the child or to provide neonatal care in an Intensive Care Unit? Is it because she supports the objective of an abortion, a dead baby and not a live baby?

We do not know how many babies are born alive in New Zealand from abortions, the information is not available. We do know that in Victoria following the decriminalisation of abortion that in 2012 there were 323 post 20 week abortions with 53 babies born alive and left to die.

The Prime Minister also voted against six excellent Supplementary Order Papers that sought to amend the Abortion Legislation Bill to provide increased legal protection for the welfare of women and the lives of unborn children. Why did the Prime Minister who loves children, vote to withhold increased protection for women and children?

It is significant and appalling that during the debate of the whole House on amendments to the Abortion Bill the Prime Minister did not take a call to explain why she was opposed to Simon O’Connor’s amendment or indeed any of the other amendments. This silence was perpetuated by the supporters of the Bill who refused to engage in debate and who were determined not to allow any amendment to pass to protect women and their precious unborn.

Right to Life believes that the reason for the Prime Minister’s refusal to support increased protection for unborn children is that like Andrew Little, she believes that the unborn child is not a human being and has no human rights.

This is the philosophy that motivated the Nazi Jewish holocaust, the Rwanda holocaust of the Tutsi and the Cambodian holocaust of Pol Pot. Today in our own country, it is sustaining the State funded holocaust against our own unborn children, aided and abetted by the shameful silence of the media and many churches.

I wish to request under the Official Information Act the following information:-

Is it your intention to increase the scope of practice subject to training for midwives and nurse practitioners to be able to perform surgical abortions or prescribe medicines for medical abortions?

In the event that the scope of practice for nurses was increased to include medical and surgical abortions, would this include school and university health clinic nurses?

Would an increase in the scope of practice for nurses and midwives to include performing surgical abortions or prescribing medicines for medical abortions require a law change or be achieved by regulation?

What are the names of any association of registered health practitioners or other organisations that have expressed support for the proposal that nurses and midwives should perform surgical abortions or prescribe medicines for medical abortions?

It is noted that the Ministry of Health website includes the following:-

Abortion Legislation Changes

Changes for Health Practitioners.

allows a wider range of registered health practitioners (eg doctors, midwives, nurse practitioners) to provide abortions (subject to scopes of practice and training). Registered health practitioners will not be able to perform surgical abortions or prescribe medicines for medical abortions unless:

I wish to lay a formal complaint against the news item of Charlie Dreaver, Political Reporter, “Select Committee delivers report on abortion Bill.” The item was included in Checkpoint on Friday,14 February, 2020.

Mr Bignall states that broadcasting standards require that listeners be made aware of significant points of view over the period of current interest on controversial topics.

I totally support this requirement, however I seriously question the broadcaster’s neutrality and professionalism in seeking comment from Terry Bellamak the President of the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand, on the grounds that ALRANZ is not a significant organisation and that Terry Bellamak does not have a significant point of view that warrants Radio NZ providing her with inordinate coverage.

Radio NZ considers the views of Terry Bellamak significant. In the interest of truth I wish to question that assumption. Ms Bellamak appears to be confused about pro-creation. In her submission to the Select Committee she sought to replace the noun woman from the Abortion Legislation Bill and replace it with “pregnant persons” as it was her contention that men also had uteruses.

It should be known that Ms Bellamak who comes from Arizona, is now a NZ citizen and was elected President of ALRANZ in 2015, having taken over from Dr Morgan Healey, an Irish woman who had been working in the United States.

Terry was previously a senior executive with Goldman Sachs and now works full time for ALRANZ. Our research of the constitution of ALRANZ an incorporated society and its annual financial accounts reveals that Terry is not being paid by ALRANZ. This raises an interesting and important question. Why would a highly paid executive leave the United States to become the unpaid President of ALRANZ? Right to Life believes that Terry is being funded by the mega wealthy pro- abortion movement in the United States.

The inordinate coverage given to ALRANZ by the media, including Radio NZ would suggest that ALRANZ represents a mass movement. This is an illusion as a perusal of the total subscriptions received, shown on the annual accounts of ALRANZ, suggest that it has a national membership of approximately 45 paid up members; hardly a mass movement.

A reading of the constitution of ALRANZ reveals that the quorum for the AGM is six. ALRANZ claims to be a voice for women in NZ. Right to Life vigorously rejects this claim and we believe ALRANZ constitutes a clear threat to the health of women and to the lives of our unborn children. If it is a voice for New Zealand women why can they not find a woman born in New Zealand to be its President and spokesperson?

ALRANZ denies the humanity of the unborn child and believes that the child does not become a human being until it is born. It believes that the killing of a child in the womb is a human right. As Terry has said, in abortion there is no baby here only a fetus. ALRANZ supported the abortion law being changed to allow abortion up to birth for any reason and in fact was concerned that the Abortion Legislation bill did not go far enough. As Terry said, “any reason is a good reason for an abortion”.

Why is Terry promoting the war on women? Terry believes that all persons have the right to bodily autonomy, unless you are an unborn child that is. She also believes contrary to medical science that an unborn child that is being killed does not feel pain in an abortion until it is 29 to 30 weeks gestation, which is scientifically, nonsense.

The community should be aware that ALRANZ has been contemptuous of the rule of law. ALRANZ on its website is encouraging women to break the law and illegally smuggle into NZ dangerous drugs used for medical abortions. A warning was even given by Dr Pippa Mckay, an abortionist, that women were putting their lives at great risk and that women would ultimately die from this illegal use of dangerous drugs.

It is ironical that ALRANZ claims to seek law reform, yet is prepared to encourage women to break the criminal law of New Zealand. It is time that the media recognised that ALRANZ is an anti-feminist organisation that does not represent New Zealand women.

Why would Radio NZ consider the views of Terry Bellamak and ALRANZ significant when:-

Its membership indicates that they have very little support in the community.

They advocate breaking the law to smuggle dangerous drugs across the border.

They promote the killing of the unborn child as a human right up to birth for any reason.

They deny that the unborn child is a human being and a member of the human family endowed with human rights.

They deny the biological fact that only women have a uterus.

A review of Radio NZ items relating to abortion since 2018 indicates a distinct bias towards ALRANZ and against pro-life organisations. The review reveals that there have been 23 news items on abortion. Extensive comment from ALRANZ was included in 7 items and there were 4 other substantial items that featured ALRANZ alone. There were also two items that included comment from the Family Planning Association.

In defence of life there were two items that featured comment from Voice for Life and Family First and one from Family Life International, there were no items that included comment from Right to Life in spite of the fact that our Society issues weekly media releases which include Radio NZ.